Tofig Yaqublu’s conviction is in the focus of attention by both azerbaijani and international communities


Tofiq Yaqublu

Analysis of violation of law during Tofiq Yaqublu’s judicial proceedings

Baku City Nizami District Court

Case № 1 (007)-197/2020

03 September 2020

Judge: Nariman Mehdiyev

Defendant: Tofiq Yaqublu

Defenders: Elchin Sadigov, Nemat Karimli, Aqil Lahij

The State Prosecutor: Asadulla Ramazanov

Victims: Elkhan Jabrayilov and Javayir Jabrayilova

Victims’ representative and lawyer: Elkhan Shukurov

Tofiq Yaqublu is a veteran of Karabakh war, member of Musavat Party and National Council of Democratic Forces of Azerbaijan. Earlier, he had been convicted three times for his political activity: in 1998, T. Yaqublu received 2 years of suspended prison sentence, in 2012 – 2,6-year term of imprisonment, was released earlier, and in 2013 he was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment. On 17 March 2016, he was pardoned by presidential decree. In addition, T. Yaqublu was brought 35 times to administrative charges. The last time, in October 2019, Tofiq Yaqublu was subjected on administrative charges. It was then when he was subjected to physical and psychological pressure, he was beaten and threatened with murder of his son.

  1. Yaqublu was arrested for the fourth time on 22 March 2020. He was accused of committing a crime under the Article 221.3 (Hooliganism committed with application of a weapon or subjects, used as the weapon) of the Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic.

According to the investigator Ramil Aliyev, at about 3 p.m. on 22 March 2020, T. Yaqublu, while driving his Toyota Corolla, ran over the VAZ 21074 driven by Elkhan Jabrayilov, his wife, Javayir Jabrayilova, near the market in the settlement “8 km”. After that, he hit Javayir Jabrayilova with the opened door of his car and then injured Elkhan Jabrailov with a screwdriver.

The defense and the defendant Tofiq Yaqublu claim that he went shopping with his wife and her nephew on 22 March 2020. He stayed in the car, while his wife and her nephew went shopping. However, not even 5 minutes later, Yaqublu called his wife and asked her to come back. He told his wife that he had realized that a provocation against him was being prepared. Yaqublu immediately wrote about the provocation on his Facebook page. In the course of the trial the defense filed many motions, most of which were not satisfied by the court. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses at the trial differed from those they had given during the investigation. The most important element was the interrogation of the witness Novruz Novruzov, whose name was indicated as Javanshir Novruzov on the list of prosecution witnesses. The defence asked the court to send a request to the Ministry of Internal Affairs in order to identify the witness’ real name, but the court refused to grant that request.

At the trial, on 1 September 2020, Tofiq Yaqublu addressed the court with the following petitions and remarks.


The petitions:

  • to admit media representatives as well as up to 10 people willing to participate in the process, taking into account the social distance;
  • issue a pending order to hold a preparatory court hearing;
  • to satisfy all those petitions filed in connection with the submission of evidence, which were initially dismissed and subsequently denied;
  • request to watch the video recording in the courtroom;
  • objection to the entire court, request to send the case to another court.



  • Issue an outstanding order to hold a preparatory court hearing;
  • grant all those petitions filed in connection with the provision of evidence that were initially dismissed and subsequently denied;
  • request to watch the video recording in the courtroom;
  • objection to the entire court, request to send the case to another court.


  • while questioning the witnesses, the corrections to their testimony have been made. Their answers were revised;
  • during the break, the judge went to his office and waited for an order to be given to him.
  • Aladin Jafarov was the court’s Chairman. In 1998 he issued a guilty verdict against T. Yaqublu, which indicates that he is now interested in this criminal case;
  • Yaqublu was in a glass box, which is prohibited by the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and there was a convoy nearby;
  • during the preliminary investigation, it was interrogated Javanshir Novruzov, not the same man as the one who was invited to the court, Novruz Novruzov.

Tofiq Yaqublu’s petitions and comments were disregarded and ignored by the court. In the final arguments of the parties the state prosecutor stated in court that T. Yaqublu’s guilt had been fully proved and asked to sentence the defendant to 4 years and 6 months imprisonment in a high security colony. The lawyer, in his defence speech, said only one phrase “We protest against injustice and lawlessness.”

The court offered the defendant a final word.

In his speech, Tofiq Yaqublu said:

“You have broken the law here and there. I was not interrogated during the trial, I only said that at this stage I did not want to testify. There were many violations during this trial. One of the violations is that you did not set up the conditions either for me or for my lawyers to voice our point of view. I know that the sentence is ready and I will be deprived of my liberty. Those years, months, days that I will spend in prison, I dedicate to the national leader of the Azerbaijani people, a great personality, the father of the nation, whom I love very much, a man hated by Aliyevs, Muhammad Emin Rasulzade.

If you remember, last year the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s Office delivered a joint statement. The First Vice-Minister of Internal Affairs and the First Vice-Prosecutor General’s Office invited me and threatened saying that “if you continue your political activities, criticize the head of the country, you will be arrested again.” This statement was circulated in the press. After that, I was arrested on October 19. At the detention center an employee of “bandit department” came to me and said that “this is your last chance, you must stop your political activity, you must leave the National Council, otherwise you will be arrested”.


The judge, “Get to the point…”

  1. Yaqublu continued,

“I am actually getting to the point. I must explain why I am arrested. I was convicted more than once, having been slandered both in administrative and criminal matters. It is impossible to falsify accusations in such a way. But this time there is a novelty. Previously, Ganimat Zahid, Seymur Hazi, and Mammad Ibrahim were slandered and convicted under this Article.  However, there is something new in my case, mainly because only one family is involved in this slander. Before, someone had also slandered.  And in this case, there is a family business in a row.  I don’t know who pushed whom on such a bad path, either it was husband who pushed his wife or vice versa, a wife who pushed her husband.”

The judge, “Speak on the merits…”

  1. Yaqublu keeps going,

“I am speaking at the core. Elkhan Dzhabrayilov is a policeman who screws people over. Here, you say every minute “This is the Article of the Criminal Procedure Code”. Let me remind you once again: you are not a judge. Ilham Aliyev ordered, and what he will tell you, you will just announce. You say that I am nervous, I speak too loud here. Aladin Jafarov, the Chairman of Nizami district court, is guilty of my first criminal prosecution. In 1998 he condemned me on trumped-up charges. Then, in 1998, I spoke very thoughtfully, quietly, my voice did not even change its tone.  At that time I thought, believed that everything had been clear in my case, the court would sort everything out, I would be released. Then there was another court, and another one… Actually, if today I won’t be nervous, you will be surprised that, how I can stay cool and quiet after what has happened? How many times can a person be stipulated? How much can one person slander another? How many times can anyone be arrested? How many times can anyone be tortured? Therefore, my nervousness and loud voice are absolutely natural. In order to believe the accusations of the investigation, the testimony of so-called victims and witnesses, I say with full responsibility that you must first of all admit that I am an idiot. Because no sane person would believe such crap. It is impossible. This crime was organized from the very beginning.

During the interrogation, when I asked Elkhan Jabrayilov where he had come from, he answered me that he was driving on the same road as I was. He confessed unknowingly that he was following me. The reason I am here is not to prove my innocence. You had to prove that you have dignity. You could not do it, you did not do it. If I really committed this crime, then you would show it to the whole world as if it were the wedding of Ramiz Mehdiyev’s grandson …”

The judge, “Speak on the merits…”

  1. Yaqublu replied,

“I am speaking on the merits. If I had committed this crime, it would be shown from morning to evening on TV channels. The authorities are spending tens of millions, a lot of money installing security cameras and radars in the city. Why can’t they find footage, a video? I demand video. Show it to us. They hit my car at the parking lot, they expected me to get out of the car, get angry and generate a conflict. Without any shame, they hit my car at the parking and expected me to get out! If I got out of the car, the scene they had planned in advance would automatically occur and would be caught on the camera. Both the officers and the police handlers rushed there right from the very beginning. This plan did not work out because I did not get out of the car. They are lying and saying that allegedly I got out of the car shouting and striking Elkhan Jabrayilov. If I scolded Elkhan Jabrayilov, let these insults get back to me and my family ten times more. I did not do this; these alleged foul words will be addressed ten times more to the families of those who ordered and committed this crime against me.”

The judge, “Speak on the merits, I am making a warning”.

  1. Yaqublu continues,

“I am speaking to the core. You do not have the guts to listen to the truth. I have the war diaries. I was the only military man who wrote a diary, while at war. I have been twice officially nominated for the title of National Hero. I captured the Armenian women, the wounded Armenians, but I have never said anything bad to them. I provided them with food, drink and treated their wounds. Now, they tell me that as if I had scolded someone and hit. Shahbaz and Dilgham, who are now in the Armenian captivity, have more rights to be protected than I do. How much lies are in this criminal case!

I am 60 years old, I do not either smoke or drink. Since our childhood my father forbade me and my brother to smoke, drink, and quarrel. We gave our word and kept it. So much lies were invented… The investigator wrote down lots of lies. What is the most important lie based on? The arrows of the clock were moved forward. They would say that I scolded, hit, and then wrote the status. All witnesses as a one said that it was around 3 p.m. There are witnesses who were questioned 2 months later, 3 weeks later. All say the same thing. I left the house at about 14:58. We had to go to the bazaar, from there we should go to visit my daughter’s grave, and in the evening we should talk with my grandson. At about 2:55 pm my wife told me, let’s go.

Everything was falsified. You studied forensics, logic. According to the investigation, at 15.00 I hit, scolded, hit with a screwdriver and then went and called the police in order they would catch me? If I committed that crime, why did I call the police? There was a camera above my head. Imagine, Tofig Yaqublu said that he had not got out of the car, then they distributed video where he had got off the car and cursed. I will never allow myself this. I am not Ilham Aliyev to tell people the lies. I know that everyone has a phone, there are security cameras everywhere, how could I lie?

It is written in the investigation report concerning the scene of the incident as if I had participated at the scene of crime but refused to sign the report. Why is there so much lying and dishonesty? In fact, I was not there, I did not participate in investigation of that place.

They say I hit Elkhan Jabrayilov on the head. If I knocked him out, why should I hit him again with a screwdriver? So far, all oppositionists, including me have been repeatedly beaten and we had been asked to keep silence. The lawyer saw me in such condition when I was subjected to an administrative arrest.  However, the medical examination report indicated that I had not been hurt. But, as about Jabrayilov, it was written as if track had passed over him. How can you say so many lies with such calmness?

I asked Elkhan a question: you showed someone your wound right after I slapped you? He answered that “no, I could not open it and show it to people.” But all policemen who came here said they had seen the scratches. If someone says he didn’t show his chest, how could they see scratches through the wool clothes?

Elkhan Jabrayilov is such a big man, how could I hit him with a screwdriver? It is impossible to imagine.  Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? The funniest thing is that such a strong man could not pull out a screwdriver from my hands whereas his wife Javayir could do it.

I am not talking about the allegation that I allegedly hit Javayir with my car door. It is not clear whether I hit her from behind or from the front.  She claims that when I closed the car door she was slammed in the shoulder. You bought a lot of cars with the money from bribes. Imagine, I sit in the car and do not go out. How can I hit her right shoulder with a door?

I was sitting in the car and saw in the mirror another car hit mine. You have this video, you have watched it, so you know it very well. When I saw him next to my car, I thought he came up to apologize. But no, he scolded me, using cursing and swearing. I immediately understood that it was a provocation. Because he hit my car at the parking lot and in addition he scolded me. At once, I locked the doors and windows of my car. I started shooting what was going on and wrote a post on Facebook. I had to send the recorded video to someone right away. I did not think that on behalf of the state they would do such a disgrace.

Elkhan Jabrayilov was scolding me and shouting at me in order to get me out of the car, he was creating a sinister situation. It was right under the camera. Get the camera footage to be shown. I did not get out of the car until the traffic control policeman, Malik Manafov, arrived. I went with him and he asked for my documents. I handed him the documents. A photo where I shoot video was circulated. Where has this video gone and why isn’t it there? They, dishonorable, also erased the video with my grandson, the son of my deceased daughter Nargiz Yaqublu.

They say there were blood drops on the handle of the screwdriver. If there were no scratches, how could there have been blood on the handle? It is said that I was beating him for 25-30 minutes! When you tell a lie, you have at least to follow the logic.

When the confrontation was carried out, he showed his chest, and there were red thin stripes painted with a red marker. In order to aggravate the situation, they added a screwdriver.

I bought my car for the money paid for my arrest by the decision of the European Court, which fined the state because of judges like you. Do I drive a trucks ZIL or a Kamaz, that I have a screwdriver in my cabin? So far I have not poured anything other than gasoline and antifreeze, I have rarely opened a hood. They say that I took out a screwdriver from my pocket. If I was sitting, how could the screwdriver be placed in my back pocket?

What are the cameras for? Tomorrow there is going to be a fight, you will leave the cameras and interrogate the witnesses? The cameras are installed on the right and left sides. Do you only need them to watch the oppositions’ beds?

I provided testimony to the investigator. I said, all what had been taken place was filmed on my phone. Initially I thought that only my phone had been taken. It turned out that they had also taken my wife’s phone. They forcibly took my wife’s phone away like robbers in the street. If a thief breaks into your house, you won’t watch the cameras? What are the cameras for? The cameras was left aside, they brought the fools here to testify against me. I am as confident as I am that I demand these videos. And these criminals are only busy with destroying the evidence.  And this is what you might call an investigation? Can you be called a judge? Can you be called a prosecutor?

The phone was inspected two months later. How does it comply with the mind and logic? Why wasn’t the phone examined immediately? Why were the records from the DVRs erased? The fake testimony is evidence, and these devices are not.

If the investigation was objective, why was my phone seized from the first day and Jabrayilovs’ phones were not?

For four days I was not allowed to contact my family members. The investigator is just a criminal, he looked through all the cameras, the video taken by the officers, as well as the city security cameras. He then deleted all of the videos.

How many policemen were involved in Ilham Aliyev’s crime in order to arrest Tofiq Yaqublu? You all will be responsible. And you personally. It is much harder to serve a sentence at the age of 80. What will happen to you, this is also a question.

When you look at the diagram of the incident, do you even worry? In order to believe it, a person should shout “I am a donkey” at the Fountain Square.

People wonder if such brazenness is possible? One of the men who was at the parking lot told me that the driver of the car had called someone and said, “he didn’t get out of the car”. I was first filming from inside the car and only when the policeman Malik Manafov arrived I got out and continued shooting. They erased those footage as well. When I got out they attacked me. The incident happened this way.

Tofiq Yaqublu, who defended his homeland from aggressors killing the enemies, is incriminated by these people. Aren’t you ashamed?

The investigation states, that it was impossible to determine the fingerprints on that screwdriver. Why not? Is that how they fight against crime? Not even 10 minutes passed after the incident, when the screwdriver was collected, look what they are saying.

What should I do once the robbers break into my house? Can I trust the police? I ask you seriously. People have built the state to protect them and protect their rights. But the state incriminates us, slander the people who defended the very state. While we were protecting this state on the front line, Ilham Aliyev was playing in a casino.”

The judge, “I am warning you for the second time.”

  1. Yaqublu:

“I was caught by the officers of the Nizami District Police Department. The Nizami District Prosecutor’s Office has been involved in that trial. And the court continued the case. In the Soviet times, the district was named after Shaumyan. And you are the followers of Shaumyan’s affair.”

The judge: “I warn you, speak on the matter.”

  1. Yaqublu:

“And I am talking basically about the matter. A judge has a right to warn, and you are not a judge. In this court there are only lawyers, as well as Suraya (court session secretary) who are legitimate. I will go on hunger strike from now on, let everyone know it. Here, the accused is not the accused, the victims are not victims, the judge is not a judge, the prosecutor is not a prosecutor. You are asking me to speak on the merits. How can I talk about things that did not happen? Do I have to prove to you that I was on Mars? Go ahead and watch the video. That’s why we want democracy, to have the right, the court, the right to defense, so you won’t be able to do what you want. What have I done? I, a poor man, went to the market to buy food.

I started a hunger strike, I do not want to lose much energy. I will go all the way to the end in order to win. I will die for my Homeland, but the criminal regime, Aliyev’s regime must be gone. The corrupted people have to leave. I am innocent, you, Ilham Aliyev, Ramiz Mehdiyev are criminals.”

The judge:

“I warned you to speak on the merits. I have warned you several times. I interrupt your last word as you are not speaking on the merits. The trial is over. Tomorrow, on September 3, at 11.00 a.m. the sentence will be announced. The court is going to leave for the meeting.”

The lawyer Nemat Karimli, “Do we have the right for a comment?”

The judge: “You already spoke yesterday. You have no right.”

On 2 September 2020, at the trial Tofiq Yaqublu began a hunger strike to protest against injustice and unlawfulness. He demanded acquittal.

On 3 September 2020, the Nizami District Court of Baku City sentenced Tofiq Yaqublu to 4 years and 3 months imprisonment finding him guilty in committing the incriminated crime, and convicted him to serve his sentence in a high-security colony.


Commentary by expert lawyer:

The court verdict is unlawful and unjustified. According to the Article 12.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic, the judicial authorities shall observe the human and civil rights and liberties afforded by the Constitution to all participants in criminal proceedings.

The Article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic states:

14.1. The right to liberty may be limited only in cases of detention, detention on remand or imprisonment in accordance with the law.

14.2. Nobody may be detained or arrested other than on the grounds provided for in the Code and other laws of the Azerbaijan Republic.

The right to freedom is specified in the Article 28 of the Azerbaijan Republic Constitution. According to the Article 28 (I) of the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic, everyone has the right for freedom. Accordance the Article 28 (II), right for freedom might be restricted only as specified by law, by way of detention, arrest or imprisonment.

The ban on arbitrary arrest is also specified in the International Law norms, in particular in the Article 5(1) subparagraph c) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It concludes:

  1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so.

The prohibition of arbitrary arrest is also set out in the Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In the case of Tofiq Yaqublu, this right was grossly violated, since during the trial the prosecution had not presented any facts that T. Yaqublu was dangerous for the society and should be isolated. Apparently, Tofiq Yaqublu’s arrest had no legitimate grounds.

In the course of the trial, the defendant repeatedly stated that after his arrest the investigation authorities interfered in the correspondence of his mobile phone’s WhatsApp system. T. Yaqublu requested an examination of his cell phone, but it was not granted. Moreover, the defendant’s spouse confirmed this interference. When questioned during the trial, Maya Yaqublu testified that her husband’s phone had been confiscated in brutal form from her bag. Meanwhile, the investigation bodies did not submit any court ruling to do it. This step by the investigation bodies violated the right to respect for private and family life, as well as the right to respect for private correspondence stipulated by the Article 8(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Almost every court session commenced with Tofiq Yaqublu’s petition to let media representatives, as well as the defendant’s close relatives and friends into the room, according to the rules related to the pandemic. However, apart from T. Yaqublu’s daughter no one was allowed into the room.

According to the Article 127 (V) of the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic, in all law courts hearing of legal cases shall be open. It is allowed to have closed hearing of legal cases only if the law court decides that open hearings may result in disclosure of state, professional or commercial secrets, or that it is necessary to keep confidentiality with respect to personal or family life.

According to the Article 27.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic, while safeguarding state, professional, commercial, personal and family secrets in accordance with this Code, court hearings in criminal cases and on other prosecution material shall be held publicly in all courts of the Azerbaijan Republic.

The Court, deliberately failing to admit those wishing to attend, explained the reason for the refusal by the coronavirus pandemic, as well as the existence of the relevant informative recommendation of the Supreme Court of the Azerbaijan Republic issued on 15 May 2020.

According to the paragraph 1.1.3 of this document, it is prohibited to gather more than 10 people in one courtroom, even in the courthouse administrative buildings. The recommendation of the Azerbaijan Republic Supreme Court was also violated. First, there were the accused, the defense lawyer, the prosecutor, the judge, and the secretary of the court session. That is, 4-5 people could have been allowed in the courtroom. Secondly, according to the paragraph 2.2.2 of the Decree of the President of the Azerbaijan Republic “On creation of information system “Electronic Court” from February 13, 2014, the proceedings on criminal, civil, commercial, administrative cases and cases on administrative violations can be conducted online. Despite the fact that this decree was adopted back in 2014, this decree was not put into practice at the time of the pandemic. Instead of ensuring the openness of the legal process and providing technical facilities to the parties to broadcast online, the courts chose to conduct trials behind closed doors. It is known that during the Coronavirus pandemic in Russia, for example, such practices have been used. “Sensitive cases” litigation is conducted via Youtube broadcasts or on Facebook. There is another option to make court hearings open – by means of the court’s technical facilities, i.e. to put a monitor at a place accessible for people who want to follow the trial. All above means that the open trial was not the court’s objective, that is why none of the options provided by the legislation has been used.

The principle of transparency is protected by the International Norms of Law, in particular by the Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Article 14, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as by the Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Thus, one of the fundamental principles of fair legal proceedings was grossly violated by the Baku City Nizami District Court.

One of the most crucial points in the criminal proceedings is the witnesses’ testimonies. According to the Article 95.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic, a person who is aware of any important circumstances may be summoned and questioned as a witness by the prosecution during the investigation or the court hearing and by the defence during the court hearing.

In the course of hearing, almost all witnesses testified that they had not seen either the collision of cars, or how Elkhan Jabrailov had been injured or any other details of the incident. It was clarified during the cross-examination between the prosecution and the defence.

A minor witness (15 years old) was also questioned in the course of the trial, and his answers to many questions were not very clear. The defence requested a forensic psychological examination to determine whether the young witness was capable or not, due to his physical or mental disabilities, of perceiving and describing the circumstances to be investigated accurately. However, the court did not grant the motion.

According to the Article 95.2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic, the following persons may not be called or questioned as witnesses:

95.2.1. those who because they are under age or because of their physical or mental disabilities cannot understand and testify about the matters to be investigated in the criminal proceedings.

The court’s denial to grant the most important petitions violated the Article 121.2. of the AR CPC, which states:

“Reasons shall be given for the decision taken on an application or request, together with an assessment of the applicant’s arguments. Applications and requests for any matters connected with the prosecution to be examined thoroughly, fully and objectively under the required legal procedure, and for the violated rights and legal interests of the parties to the criminal proceedings and of other participants in the proceedings to be restored, may not be rejected.”

According to the Article 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic,

126.1. Oral and written information received by the prosecuting authority from the suspect, accused, victim or witnesses in pursuance of this Code shall be considered as evidence.

126.2. Only statements based on the information or conclusions of a person directly comprehending the act and its causes, character, mechanism or development may be considered as evidence.

126.3. Information given to the prosecuting authority by the suspect, accused, victim or witnesses on the basis of hearsay may not be used as evidence. Only information derived from the words of a deceased person may exceptionally be accepted as evidence by court decision.

126.4. The value of evidence may not be assigned to statements given in the following situations:

126.4.1. when a person is agreed to be unable to comprehend or describe matters significant to the prosecution at the appropriate time;

126.4.2. when a person refuses to undergo an examination by experts of his ability to comprehend or describe matters significant to the prosecution.

126.5. Information from persons who may not be questioned as witnesses shall not be used as evidence.

Article 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic states:

 “Evidence collected for the purposes of prosecution shall be verified fully, thoroughly and objectively. As part of the verification process the items of evidence collected shall be analysed and compared with one another, new evidence shall be collected and the reliability of the source of the evidence obtained shall be established.”

In the case of Tofiq Yaqublu, the testimonies of many witnesses were not supported with other case evidences, and the reliability of the source raised reasonable doubts about its credibility.

The investigation and court did not determine whether the event had been a crime, whether Tofiq Yaqublu had been involved in the incident, and what had happened exactly at the market in the settlement “8 km” on 22 March 2020.

The doubts that arose in the course of the investigation and trial were not interpreted in favor of the defendant, as stipulated by the criminal procedure law. Therefore, an illegal and groundless verdict was issued against T. Yaqublu.